coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1986, 1988, and 1997 respectively and they live in Edirne.
6.  The applicants are the wife and children of Nejat Kara who died in a traffic accident which occurred on 17 November 1998. He was working as an officer within the National Estates Division of the Governorship of Yalova.
7.  On 12 April 1999 the applicants applied to the Bursa Administrative Court and claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages based on the allegation that to employ someone who was normally hired for office work, as a driver was against the relevant legislation.
8.  On 9 February 2000 the Bursa Administrative Court decided that the case was not within the ambit of administrative judiciary. Upon that decision the applicant brought a civil case before the Yalova Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.
9.  On 10 March 2001 the Yalova Civil Court decided on the case and dismissed it. The applicants appealed that decision.
10.  On 9 May 2002 the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Yalova Civil Court on the ground that the conflict among the courts who dealt with the case was not a mere jurisdictional conflict within the same judiciary, it was between the two main judiciaries as civil and administrative, therefore the decision had to be appealed before the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes instead of the Court of Cassation.
11.  Despite that decision the Yalova Civil Court mistakenly sent the case again to the Court of Cassation.
12.  On 16 March 2004 the Court of Cassation noticed the mistake and sent the case to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.
13.  The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes found that the case should be heard by the administrative judiciary.
14.  On 9 December 2004 the Bursa 1st Administrative Court, in a fully reasoned decision, dismissed the case.
15.  On 11 February 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of the applicants.
16.  On 24 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for rectification.
17.   The Supreme Administrative Court employed in its last two decisions standard texts of dismissal and did not explain the grounds of its decisions in detail.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Balassagyarmat.
5.  On 26 April 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and eighteen other defendants for fraud. A ban on travel was also imposed on him until 2003.
6.  On 27 January 2003 the Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court. From February 2007 onwards the District Court held one hundred and nine hearings and heard one hundred and one witnesses and eleven experts.
7.  On 14 November 2007 the District Court gave judgment, acquitting the applicant. The applicant and his counsel took note of the decision, therefore it became final the same day.
8.  On 17 January 2008 a written copy of the judgment was served on the applicant.
4.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant requested the County Building Inspector to assess whether her neighbours had extended their property lawfully. The construction works took place between 1969 and 1974. After the proceedings which aimed to identify the parties to the dispute had finished, the County Building Inspector commenced the proper proceedings on 21 January 2005.
5.  On 8 November 2005 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings finding that all the construction works had been conducted legally. The inspector relied on witnesses’ testimonies since all the documents had gone missing. The Regional Building Inspector upheld the decision on 7 April 2006.
6.  In the meantime the applicant lodged a complaint with the Wielkoposki Governor about inactivity of the County Building Inspector. On 8 June 2006 the Wielkopolski Governor found that the 8 November 2005 decision had not been examined timeously.
7.  The applicant applied for judicial review of the Regional Building Inspector’s decision. On 6 June 2007 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions stating that the evidence gathered was not sufficient for reaching any conclusions.
8.  On 15 June 2008 the applicant sent a letter to the Regional Building Inspector pointing to the fact that the decision had not been taken although over a year had elapsed since the court’s judgment and complaining about the length of the proceedings before the County Building Inspector. On 2 July 2008 the Regional Inspector advised the County Inspector on the need to deal with the case.
9.  On 13 November 2008 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings. On 23 January the Regional Building Inspector quashed the decision and remitted the case.
10.  Finally on 30 November 2009 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kastamonu. Her husband died in a traffic accident.
6.  On 7 June 2000 she instituted compensation proceedings before the Tosya Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. In the course of the proceeding eight expert reports were concluded.
7.  On 9 November 2006 the proceedings before the civil court finalized the case in favour of the applicant.
8.  On 11 February 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.
9.  The applicant requested rectification.
10.  On 13 October 2008 the Court of Cassation admitted the request for rectification and upheld the decision in favour of the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1924, 1963, 1965 and 1963 respectively and live in İzmir.
5.  On 21 September 1989 the applicants brought a case before the Seferihisar Cadastral Court in claim of possession on a plot of land
6.  On 18 September 2006 the case was finalised.
7.  In the course of the proceedings there was only one judge authorised to hear cadastral cases and in the entire proceedings only eight hearings were presided by the same judge.
8.  The Cadastral Court decided to conduct on-site examination after four years and five months from the beginning of the proceedings. The decision to conduct on-site examination was implemented nine years and four months after the decision.
9.  In cadastral cases courts were authorised by the law to issue the certificate of inheritance, replacing magistrate civil courts. However, in the case at hand the cadastral court avoided to exercise such authority and preferred to give deadlines to the parties to apply to the magistrate civil courts that caused about six years of delay.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Szentendre.
5.  On 21 July 1999 a foundation brought an action against the applicant before the Szentendre District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of an agreement. The action was dismissed in June 2000. This decision was quashed on appeal by the Pest County Regional Court on 12 March 2002.
6.  In the resumed proceedings the case was transferred between several courts due to a dispute over competence.
7.  Finally the Dunakeszi District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action on 11 June 2007. This judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 13 July 2007. According to the rules of Code of Civil Proceedings, the parties had fifteen days from this date to submit an appeal against the judgment.
8.  In the absence of appeals, the judgment became final on 18 September 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Piekary.
5.  On 2 March 2008 the applicant was arrested by the police under the suspicion of having participated in an organised criminal gang trading in women and deriving profits from prostitution.
6.  On 13 March 2008 the Poznan District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand (file no. III K 278/08).
7.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the Poznan Regional Court on 2 September, 25 August and 1 December 2008.
8.  In 2009 his pre-trial detention was further extended on 17 February and 27 May.
9.  On 12 August 2009 the applicant and ten other co-accused were indicted before the Poznan Regional Court (file no. Ap V Ds. 37/09).
10.  On 25 May 2010 the Poznan Court of Appeal decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the court relied on the risk of his going into hiding, especially since he had been avoiding arrest for one-and-a-half years. Moreover, the court relied on the severity of the penalty that might be imposed and a risk that the applicant would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. The court finally considered that the criminal proceedings had been very complex as the case involved eleven co-accused charged with a dozen offences each.
11.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 June 2010.
12.  Afterwards the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended on 19 August, 26 October, and 21 December 2010. All decisions were unsuccessfully appealed against by the applicant. The court in particular relied on the severity of the possible penalty and on the fact that the applicant acted in an organised criminal gang. In the last of the above listed decisions the Court of Appeal considered that the risk of a severe sentence should no longer be a valid ground for the applicant’s very lengthy pre-trial detention. However, the other grounds, namely risk of his interfering with the proper course of the proceedings and going into hiding, were still valid grounds for his continued detention.
13.  On 24 March and 26 May 2011 the Poznan Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
14.  On 8 September 2011 the Poznan Court of Appeal decided that the applicant could be released on bail in the amount of 70,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
15.  On 12 October 2011 the applicant paid the bail and was released from detention.
16.  On 6 June 2012 the Poznan Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment (file no. XVI K 45/10). The judgment is not final as the applicant lodged an appeal against it.
4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the Leningard region.
5.  In 2005 the applicant brought a court action against a bank for its refusal to refund the capital placed on a savings account together with interest and appointed B. to represent him in those proceedings.
6.  The Podporozhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region (“the Town Court”) set the case down for trial on 13 December 2005. The applicant alleges that in the beginning of the hearing his representative received the observations and documents filed by the defendant. He complains that the Town Court allowed his representative to read those observations during several minutes which were not enough to prepare his comments on them.
7.  On 13 December 2005 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.
8.  On 20 December 2005 the applicant and his representative lodged an appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005.
9.  On 2 February 2006 the Regional Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s and his representative’s appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005. Neither the applicant nor his representative were present at the hearing whereas the defendant’s representative was present and made submissions. It does not appear from the decision of 2 February 2006 that the appeal court verified whether the applicant and his representative had been duly apprised of the hearing and, if they had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned. The applicant alleges that he and his representative B. were not apprised of the appeal hearing.
10.  By a letter of 6 March 2006 the Town Court informed the applicant that on 2 February 2006 the Regional Court had examined and dismissed his appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005.
11.  On 10 March 2006 the applicant’s representative complained to the Town Court that he had not been apprised of the appeal hearing of 2 February 2006. In particular, he claimed that in the materials of the case he had found a notification letter of 11 January 2006 addressed to him. However, there had been no documents confirming that that letter had been dispatched to him.
12.  On 15 March 2006 the Town Court replied that on 12 January 2006 it had sent to the applicant and his representative notifications about the appeal hearing of 2 February 2006. The Town Court further explained that such letters were normally sent by ordinary mail without acknowledgment of receipt and that the post office was responsible for their delivery. The Town Court advised the applicant’s representative to complain about the failure to deliver the letters of 12 January 2006 to the post office.
13.  The applicant submitted that he had applied for a supervisory review of the decision of 2 February 2006, but the supervisory review court refused to examine his complaint on procedural grounds.
5.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1989 and 1990 respectively and live in Izmir.
6.  The applicants are the wife and sons of Ahmet Celil Erkızan who died in a ship wreck on 2 May 1994.
7.  On 11 January 1995 the applicants brought a civil case before the Milas Civil Court of General Jurisdiction in request of pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
8.  On 3 November 2003 the Civil Court partially awarded their requests for damages.
9.  On 1 July 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment based on the fact that the case was within the jurisdiction of labour courts.
10.  Upon that decision the Milas Labour Court began to hear the case.
11.  On 21 February 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Labour Court which admitted the case of the applicants again.
12.  On 16 July 2007 the Labour Court following the quashing decision of the Court of Cassation admitted the case partially.
13.  On 8 July 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision.
14.  On 10 September 2008 the final decision was served to the applicants.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a life term in the Leopoldov prison.
5.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant claimed compensation before the Bratislava I District Court for damages allegedly caused by legal malpractice of his former lawyer.
6.  On 31 August 2004 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fees.
7.  Subsequently, between 22 October 2004 and 4 August 2008, the District Court appointed one-by-one four legal-aid lawyers for the applicant who appealed against the appointment or refused to take up the legal representation submitting that they were in a friendly relationship with the defendant or that their illness or business prevented them from providing legal aid to the applicant.
8.  The Bratislava Regional Court, on the appeal of the appointed lawyers, twice quashed the District Court’s decisions to appoint a legal-aid lawyer and remitted the matter for a new determination and in one instance it dismissed the attorney’s appeal.
9.  On 24 September 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about alleged delays before the District Court. It held that the District Court had been proceeding in a continuous manner and that short periods of inactivity of the court had not violated the applicant’s right invoked. It further held that the lawyers’ refusals to take up the legal representation were supported by reasonable grounds and therefore the delays caused by this fact could not be attributable to the District Court.
10.  By a decision of 12 January 2009 the District Court appointed a fifth legal-aid lawyer and in March 2009 it requested the applicant to eliminate shortcomings in his action within ten days.
11.  The applicant’s legal-aid lawyer asked for extension of the given time-limit or alternatively the appointment of another legal-aid lawyer on account of her temporary illness presumably to last until the end of April 2009.
12.  On 10 November 2009 the District Court repeatedly requested the lawyer to complete the petition.
13.  On 15 March 2010 the lawyer requested that her appointment be quashed. The District Court dismissed her request and on 2 September 2010 again requested her to amend the petition.
14.  The proceedings are still pending.
5.  On an unspecified date the first applicant bought 1982 State premium bonds (облигации Государственного внутреннего выигрышного займа 1982 года), which were issued by the USSR Government in 1982 in order to finance certain State programmes. It was stipulated at the time of issue that the bonds would be redeemed by 2004 at the latest.
6.  In 1992, the Government of the Russian Federation acknowledged their succession in respect of the USSR’s obligations under the 1982 loan and suspended payments under the 1982 State premium bonds.
7.  Subsequently, the first applicant converted all but forty-four 1982 State premium bonds into 235 1992 Russian bonds.
8.  Between 1995 and 2000, a series of legislative and regulatory acts was enacted providing for the conversion of Soviet securities, including 1982 State premium bonds, into special Russian promissory notes. The Government were mandated to devise a procedure for the conversion and to fix the value of the promissory notes. Although regulations on the conversion were adopted in 2000, the actual conversion did not start and application of the regulations remained suspended.
9.  The first applicant brought proceedings before the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Magnitogorsk, seeking redemption of his 1992 Russian bonds and affirmation that the forty-four 1982 State premium bonds had retained their purchase power.
10.  On 28 March 2005 the court granted the claim in part, declaring that the 1982 bonds had retained their value and purchase power proportionate to the USSR currency exchange rate in 1990. The judgment entered into force.
11.  The first applicant immediately brought proceedings before the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Magnitogorsk to recover the value of nine of his 1982 State bonds.
12.  By a judgment of 17 May 2005 the court dismissed the claim, finding that the Government had not yet developed a conversion mechanism for the bonds. On 21 July 2005 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court.
13.  At the present time the first applicant holds nine 1982 State premium bonds with a nominal value of 450 roubles.
14.  On 20 June 1997 the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Magnitogorsk ordered the debtor, M., to repay the applicants 1,100,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
15.  On 20 June 2003 the same court awarded the applicants interest on the unpaid debt in the amount of RUB 1,100,000.
16.  Following the bailiff’s failure to recover the debt, in 2003 the applicants brought a civil claim against M., seeking determination of his share in a flat that he owned jointly with his spouse and child, and its seizure to enforce the court decisions.
17.  On 21 October 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Magnitogorsk disallowed the claim on the ground that the flat was M.’s only housing and hence could not be seized for recovery of the debt.
18.  By a decision of 19 February 2004 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant being a shareholder of a limited liability company sought determination of his right to consult the company’s accounting documents before the Bratislava Regional Court.
6.  On 5 November 2002 the Regional Court granted the action in that it ordered the defendant to afford the applicant the opportunity to consult the company’s documents for the years 2000 and 2001.
7.  On 8 June 2004 the Supreme Court, on the defendant’s appeal, dismissed the judgment concerning the applicant’s claim to consult the company’s documents for 2001. It further quashed the remaining part of the judgment and returned the case to the Regional Court for a new determination. The applicant appealed on points of law.
8.  On 27 April 2006 a cassation chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law.
9.  On 7 November 2008 the Regional Court by a decision of a chamber in a changed composition stayed the proceedings pending the outcome ofa different set of proceedings related to the applicant’s expulsion from the company. The applicant appealed against the decision.
10.  On 28 April 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
11.  On 30 June 2009 the applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining about the length of the proceedings before both the Regional Court and the Supreme Court concerning his action. It further alleged that the proceedings leading to the Regional Court’s decision to stay them had been unfair and that he had been deprived of his right to a hearing before a tribunal established by law. Finally, he complained of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
12.  On 10 September 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The Constitutional Court, examining separately the length of proceedings before the Regional Court and the Supreme Court, held that the Regional Court’s inactivity following its decision to stay the proceedings could not be considered as unjustified delays. As to the period before the decision to stay of the proceeding, it did not find any indication of a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As far as the proceedings before the Supreme Court were concerned, the Constitutional Court observed that at the time of lodging of the constitutional complaint the proceedings had been stayed by the final decision and their duration was in any event less than six months. It therefore rejected the complaint of the length of the proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded. It also rejected the remaining complaints on the same ground.
13.  On 20 April 2011 the Regional Court issued a judgment in the other set of proceedings which became final on 16 December 2011.
14.  On 4 April 2012 the Regional Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings on the appeal on points of law concerning the above judgment of 16 December 2011.
15.  The applicant appealed against the decision. The proceedings are pending.
4.  On 17 July 2001 the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants together with the legal predecessor of the sixth, seventh and eighth applicants challenged the validity of a real estate purchase contract of 1976 and sought to recover the property in issue.
5.  Subsequently the District Court requested the case files concerning inheritance proceedings related to the estate of several applicants’ legal predecessors, appointed a guardian to represent one minor claimant and held two hearings.
6.  On 30 May 2003 it dismissed the claim. On 14 October 2003 the case file was transmitted to the Žilina Regional Court for a decision on appeal.
On 3 June 2004 the Žilina Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination. The case file returned to the District Court on 18 July 2004.
7.  The District Court scheduled a hearing for 30 November 2006 which was adjourned for 3 October 2007. After the hearing the District Court requested an expert to give opinion on the authenticity of signatures on the purchase contract. The case file was served on the expert on 9 April 2008.
8.  After one of the claimants’ death on 26 November 2008, the sixth, seventh and eighth applicant joined the civil proceeding as his legal successors.
9.  On 17 December 2008 the District Court granted the claim as far as it concerned the validity of the contract and dismissed the remaining part. The parties appealed against the judgment.
10.  On 11 June 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional length of proceedings complaint for being manifestlyill-founded. It held that the periods of inactivity of the District Court had not resulted in delays incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11.  On 15 July 2010 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and returned the case to the latter for a new determination.
12.  On 22 November 2010 the District Court dismissed the claim and on 20 December 2010 it amended its judgement. The applicants appealed.
13.  The proceedings are pending.